click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
on the november mid term election? and if you hook at-- and then later on, reflexively supported the regime in ruwan da when there were more war crimes committed and since vowed to heal that, but, you know, you've seen her political statements recently that showed there's a political side of susan rice and willingness for talking points that we can't afford as secretary of state and john kerry, he was part of the foreign senate relations committee and he was back in the late 60's and talked about war crimes that he reportedly saw against the vietnam war and you have some track records that don't make them the best fit. >> there are numerous republicans, john mccain, lindsey graham, a barraso who sates i would support john kerry as secretary of state who in their words would cruise through a nomination. and how would an affect if those two are in place? >> if you like what's in the last four years, you're going to get more of the same. deep defense cuts. if you had john kerry as secretary of defense. what we need is a strong secretary of defense, in spite of drawdowns and budget cuts is goin
served across eight presidential administrations and formed the coalition to stress the need for elected officials to act. not only has the passage of time exacerbated some of the economic problems, it is revealed perhaps equally political. our inability to grapple with the pressing fiscal to the just represents nothing less than dhaka crisis in our space order. compounding the instability and unpredictability in a volatile world. ever proposition is simple. the national security in the united states depends on its economic health. that must be ensured by averting the immediate crisis, and by laying the ground short for the rigorous long-term program of the debt reduction, smart investment, economic growth, and lower income inequality. in the national security spending, we can target investments much more efficiently than response to threats that are evolving before our eyes. and resources need to be shifted towards them on military elements of the national security posture. in the immediate term, and by that i mean over the next four weeks, we must avoid driving the country over the fis
would note that the president was in cam cambodia after the election, and then he was in burma, and secretary clinton moves throughout the region as well as secretary panetta, and the amount of activities i do and my forces do is a prompt jump than what we did in the past, and we're looking for opportunities to do more exercise. we are doing more of those things already, and that's viz l to the allies. i think it's visible to the partners, and i feel it visible to the region. we oftenment to jump to, well, where's the next aircraft carry your or the submarine. that's the signal. we will, over time, as you've heard secretary panetta say, rebalance towards the pacific, and i mentioned opening remarks. we're rapidly moving the most capable assets into the region because of the ballistic missile defense threats we face and those things, so it's about a holistic approach, and what i do on the military side is just one aspect of it. it's got to be tie into the economic side, what's happening in the diplomatic side, and so we're working hard that accomplishes this strategy. >> a quick
we asked -- these are exit polls from november 6, from the last election, of course. should same-sex marriage be legally recognized, yes, 49%, no, 46%. obviously, the country is closely divided on this. but we have seen a little bit of a shift in the numbers. brian, do you think that the time has come that attitudes about this have changed and the court will go with that change? >> no, i don't think that's the case at all. i mean, look, six months ago, north carolina voted by over 61% to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. of course, there were the four deep blue liberal statings that voted to redefine marriage, but that's an indication of the future of the you country. there is no constitutional right to redefine marriage. our founding fathers didn't see it that way, the last supreme court decision, the united states supreme court said there was no federal question here. so this is essentially making the law up as you go along, it is reading into the constitution. i do not believe the united states supreme court is going to launch another culture war, just like r
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)